On Sat, 2012-02-18 at 09:31 +0000, Philip Hands wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:41:10 +0000, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote: > > Jose Luis Rivas <ghostbar@debian.org> > > > Just to give context to your email, could you provide a list with the > > > OSI-approved licenses that you call non-free? (Maybe a link) That way > > > every one else knows which licenses are you talking about exactly. > > > > http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/fsf-osi-list-diff.txt > > shows the ones where OSI and FSF disagree, but what's the > > point of knowing which are involved? Basically, OSI has > > aided proliferation. [...] > If they've not already done so, they could also have a "Open Source, but > we'd rather you didn't use this drivel" category, with a recommended > equivalent license that is a better choice if you were thinking of using > that one. OSI's proliferation report <http://opensource.org/proliferation-report> and list by category <http://opensource.org/licenses/category> distinguishes their favoured common licences and the pointless licences, though it doesn't say which common licences are recommended as alternatives. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers. - Leonard Brandwein
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part